Gay rights and abortion rights should not affect your vote!

Ok before you all judge me hear me out. I am very much a liberal concerning the running of our country but concerning social issues I am very
conservative having been raised in a southern babtist church.

I personally want george bush ousted from his presidency and look forward to seeing him climb on that plane leaving the white house.

Now on to my topic Some people are concerned and will not vote for john kerry because of his stance on abortion and gay marriage and other social
issues. Why don't these issues matter. Look at bush's ban on partial birth abortion. Shot down by a single judge. Look at gay marriages being
performed in contest to state law and look at how powerless the us goverment is against it. Theres no federal law so they have no power against , yet
if a federal law passed it of course too would be deemed unconstitutional. We all know this to be true. One judge can shoot down any presidential
desire to regualte morality.

My point is if you are against kerry because of his stance on abortion and gay marriage but hate the way bush is running this country. Then vote
kerry. I detest abortion and homosexuals being married. It is demoralizing our society. But no president will ever decide those issues, only your
senators and representitives and judges will. Remeber that next time you don't feel like voting for them.

Bush will run our country in the ground with his spending and lack of concern for the common man. Don't let these issues stand in your way of voting
for kerry he will make a difference for our country for the better.

Well, for any good discussion you need two opposing sides right? Well I am Hoppin's complete opposite! I haven't decided who I will vote for in the
upcoming election, but I would consider myself a conservative in most government policy with very liberal social views.

That said, I would have to disagree with your conclusion that social issues are not important considerations in choosing a president. If I correctly
understand your stance, you are saying that the courts and congress will be deciding these issues. In my opinion you are ignoring the role of the
president in the system of checks and balances.

The president could have a very significant impact on the resolution (or perhaps better stated-the evolution) of these issues. He has the veto power,
so he can put a halt to any legislation passed by Congress, and he nominates the federal judges. And lets face it, some of those Supreme Court Judges
are getting pretty old.

I prefer to say that the president will impact the evolution of these issues, because I really don't think that there is any doubt that gay marriage
will be recognized in this country. We already know the end result. It is a simple matter of social evolution, just as there was once heated
political debate over mixed race marriage. The only question is how soon, and that is what the President can impact.

WEll I expected more of a response from people on this but oh well. I agree with the fact that the president can veto bills but I feel if there is
overwhelming public demand a bill will pass regardless of what the president personally feels. He would go with the flow and who would give him more
votes in the end I belive. The senators and the house are the real power behind the social votes.

As for the president appointing the judges they are never all on his side as shown with the bush partial birth abortion ban and its death in the
courts. They generally try to stay unbiased and follow the constitiution anyways,even though most do it very liberally concerning social issues.

I have always found it hard to belive the founders of the country when writing the constitution were even considering legalizing gay marriage and
abortion. Those types of things weren't even considered, and were taboo. Which is why I find people arguing it as a constitutional right rediculous.

Well no matter how you feel you gotta see bush is screwing up our country for everyone but the upper class whos getting rich off his tax cuts.
Thats why kerry will have my vote.

I dont understand why people think that what is good for the upper class is automatically bad for the rest of us? I don't see how Bush has hurt our
economy in any way. What kills me about Bush is all this marriage stuff and the religious factor. I don't want a president to tell me I should go
find a wife, or to tell me to put my faith in God. But I think I would rather just ignore him for a couple more years than have a stiff like Kerry
representing the country. I mean the guy is getting better, but i just dont feel any connection with him. Its that face and the voice and his whole
presence, I just can't get behind him and say that I want him to be the figurehead for my country.

Yes, this strange assumption that the upper class is automatically opposed/in competition with the other classes is very unrealistic. I mean,
honestly, when the economy sucks, it sucks for all; when its full bore, we all loosen the belts.

Bush vis Economy? Frankly he didn't trash the economy. It was already broken. I live in Silicon Valley, CA and i'm telling you things were
insane. People everywhere were riding the crest of a wave, making millions in imaginary money, and not minding that the shoals were approaching. The
sheer volume of commercial construction is staggering: imagine all those fields you used to play in when you were 10... gone. Instead Maxtor builds
this mammoth production facility and you've got barb wire and slab-walls instead of abandoned rail ties. Repeat times everywhere. It was all
unsustainable. The boom was off the bloom or whatever.

As far as the original topic of this thread:
If we arent supposed to select our candidate for president based on social issues, what criterion do you suggest we use? Frankly, selecting your
candidate simply on the grounds that he panders to the left instead of the right is ridiculous. In the end, as we all know, both the left and the
right pander back to the $. Basically the only difference a president has is on the trivial social issue of the day. To assume otherwise is akin to
disregarding common sense in exchange for the propoganda spewed out according to the party-line.

Why should any point of interest be of concern, then? All points of interest can be seen as not important, depending upon what you personally find
important.

Sure, activist judges can do their own thing, disregarding the intent and language of the constitution and the national foundation, but that certainly
does not mean that we should elect presidents that will run headway into the liberal agenda.

I have some serious issues with some things Bush has done during his first, but I see no need in jumping on a bandwagon that will drive the nation
furhter into the abyss into which it already seems to be spiraling.

While those two topics are only two topics, they are an insight into his ethics and morals.

Well I make my judgment about the upper class and bush because he favors them. I am from eastern rural tennesse. Everyone there works in factories or
simple jobs such as wal mart or fast food. There are not a lot of high paying college necessary jobs. When you see so many factories pull up and leave
or close down because there is no market for their goods it affects you.

If you are poor you can get help such as welfare and free medical care. The middle class if sol. My sister and husband sold an auto garage and had
almost 50,000 dollars saved from it. They had to spend it all on medical bills just to pay for their one daughter who's valve in the esphagous
didn't work and let fluid go into her lungs. GOvernment help. NOpe She wasn't poor or rich

Hoppin, life is hard, and most of the time unfair, but that is the purpose of self preservation.

We all work for our own ends, and should not be seeking government assistance. They are not responcible for every citizens financial wellbeing.
Otherwise, we have what we have now, a bloated, overspending gas bag.

There is plenty of help out there, but family, and the distruction of such, is the root of the desolation of many. The distruction of the family has
lead to the distruction of community.

This has weakened our country and forced the federal government to have more and more roll in our lives.

Abortion is a huge issue that can not be ignored. People such as myself, believers that this is the American Holocaust, can not ignore this issue,
nor support anyone who serves to define life on the side of selfishness and the promotion of not taking responcibility for your actions.

I do not believe the destruction of the family is the leading reason to the downfall of community. If so, then there would have been the same amount
of badness in America. Back in the day when divorce was taboo, you had serious dysfunction in the family. Spousal abuse, cheating, and bludgeoning
kids (not spanking) happened quite a bit back then. Sure, it still happens now, but people do tend to get divorces when things get bad instead of
living a lie or covering up the bruises. The problems have always been there, they just never severed the relationship. The only difference now, is
that there is only half of the family unit which leaves kids starved for attention and often times are neglected. Does that create a bad kid or
influence the community? Of course it does, but not on the scale you think.

I think the death of community is coming by the hands of the death of personal liability. We all do it. We tend to not be responsible for our
actions. We have seen people sue McDonalds over making them fat, burning themselves when they spill coffee on themselves, or someone burning
themselves with coffee when they realize that "Caution: Hot" did not JUST the cup. Corporations label things to keep we Americans from suing them
over the most ridiculous claim. If we fall on someone's yard and bump our heads, we can sue the owner's for money. When a guy goes to a fraternity
party and drinks til he dies, his parents view the fraternity as deep pockets and gets their million. Or when a girl drinks to much and regrets
sleeping with the guy the next day, she cries rape and gets her money. Whenever the bartender gets sued when a guy drives his car into a ditch and
dies, you know we have gone too far. Parents today find it much easier to give kids medicine and a Nintendo than to raise them. (I'm not talking
about the kids with actual problems) I believe liability is the issue America has a problem with. But anyway...far off topic.

Originally posted by Amuk
So KrazyJethro let me see if I understand what you are saying.....

Its OK for the government to force a woman to have a deformed or mongoliod baby.........

And then.....

Once its born and needs HUGE medical bills......

Tell that same woman, hey its not our problem, everyone has to take care of themselves?

Amuk, there is big difference and you know it. KJ is talking about abortion on demand. I may be pro choice, but I don't even begin to think
abortion on demand is good. To support it, you have to support infanticide. There is no difference between a "fetus" one minute before it is born
than a baby one minute after it is born aside from the obvious. Besides, I believe most conservative views support abortion for a fetus that is
deformed or severly unhealthy baby.

I see what you mean, and understand that, but the distruction of the family did not cause what you speak of. Rather I was speaking to the distruction
of community caused by rampant divorce.

The divorce rate is directly attributable to the lowering of personal responcibilites and they feed off of each other.

This is one of the slippery slopes that I speak of. The community and the family unit, allowed people to take care of many of the problems covered by
government payroll now, on the lowest possible level.

Abortion.

While I understand that forcing a woman to have a mangled baby sounds wrong, trust that it is not. This is not a common occurance. I am not saying
everyone fend for themselves and screw your peers.

I am saying that the federal government is not responcible for those types of things. This is the very reason charities and churches are tax exempt.
They are the support along with a strong community that kept it off the governments back for the first 150 years.

But you can not just allow someone to kill the baby because it will be a drain. All kids are drains, on energy, money, time, sanity. There are
accidents which cause kids to become vegtables. Should we kill them too? Eliminate the weak and let the strong survive?

It is the responcibility of the government soley to preserve life in all forms when possible, not support it, but rather to encourage it and foster
help through private orginazations.

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
I detest abortion and homosexuals being married. It is demoralizing our society.

Wow. You just left yourself wide open with this comment.

Abortion is an issue that's better left to the individual. No person on this planet should ever have a say in what you want to do with your own
reproduction system. If you detest it, then don't do it. It's not harming you in any way. Do I like abortion? No, it actually makes me very sad, but
not in the cases where it's medically neccessary. (rape, health problems, life threatening deformities, etc.)
As for the case of homosexuals wanting to get married...where do I begin? Homosexuals exist. They have been around as long as mankind. They are your
brothers and sisters, your mothers and fathers, your aunts and uncles, your sons and daughters. To deny them the same treatment as any other human
being on earth is detestable, and will be looked down upon by generations years from now. It reminds me of making negroes sit in the back of the bus,
or drink from a seperate fountain. The demoralization of this counrty will be the result of an equal share of immoral deeds done by people of all
walks of life.....white, black, heterosexual, and homosexual. To pin the downfall of a country on a specific race or creed, or sexual preference is
beyond ignorant. Please, deny ignorance on this matter. Thanks. Have a terrific day.

No one forced them to get pregnant. The government is only "forcing" people to do what are supposed to do. Take care of their kids.

And if my choice is that abortion is the best way to "take care of" that kid? How about a child that would live in great pain because of its
deformites?

Where do you draw the line there? Can the government step in if they think that your feeding the kid to much junk food?

I guess to me its just the Government interfering in your life one way or another.

The only difference is you just want the government to enforce YOUR veiws on everyone else. I dont want the government to enforce much of ANY veiws on
anyone else. I am willing to let them live with their choices.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.